Saramaka People, Suriname law does not recognize the right of the indigenous peoples to juridical personality, even though the State has declared that it is in the process of recognizing indigenous rights. Therefore, the Commission concluded that, in this respect, there is no real dispute, but rather a persistent violation of Article 3 of the Convention, because, starting with the Saramaka case, the Court has declared that the State of Suriname must recognize the juridical personality of the indigenous and tribal peoples. 102. The representatives agreed, in general, with the Commission. They indicated that, because the Kaliña and Lokono peoples are denied the right to be recognized as persons before the law, they are also denied the ability to maintain, exercise and seek the protection of their collective property and other rights under domestic law and in the courts. The representatives also argued that the State had failed to comply with the ruling in the case of the Saramaka People that it adopt administrative and legislative measures to recognize the legal personality of the indigenous and tribal peoples. Consequently, Suriname had violated Article 3 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1 and 2 of this instrument. 103. The State argued that it was aware that, under international law and jurisprudence, and specifically under the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, indigenous peoples had the right to recognition of collective legal personality. However, the State indicated that “Surinamese law was unfamiliar with the concept of attributing legal personality to ethnic groups as a collectivity.” It also indicated that the law indicates, precisely, the entities that may have access to recognition of legal personality, and recognizes this to natural persons and legal persons such as associations, foundations, and certain companies, but not to ethnic groups. The State indicated that the concept of legal personality in relation to the Kaliña and Lokono peoples meant “that each member of the community was considered fully as a bearer of rights and duties.” Thus, the State concluded that although there were no specific provisions regarding recognition of the collective personality of the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples, domestic law in no way curtailed the rights of their members as legal subjects within the territory of Suriname. 104. Nevertheless, the State indicated that, in accordance with its treaty obligations, Suriname had initiated a process to examine the impact that the recognition of collective rights would have on its legal system. Also, it was formulating legislation concerning the legal relationship between the traditional authorities and the Government, and envisaged recognizing in the legislation the traditional authorities as the legitimate representatives of the indigenous and tribal peoples before the central Government, especially on issues related to their traditions and in circumstances in which it was necessary to consult the peoples. The State considered that the adoption of this new law would provide an acceptable solution to the issue of the recognition of collective legal personality. In its final arguments, the State indicated that it was aware that the indigenous and tribal peoples had the right to recognition of legal personality under international law, specifically, the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights. Added to this, the State indicated that, at this time, conflicting positions existed in Parliament as to whether property titles issued to the indigenous and tribal peoples should be individual or collective. B. Considerations of the Court 105. The Court notes that the dispute in this section consists in determining the alleged failure of the State to comply with respect for collective recognition of legal personality to the indigenous and tribal peoples, especially the Kaliña and Lokono peoples. 106. The Court points out that, in the case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, the Court emphasized that domestic law guaranteed individual rights to the members of the indigenous 29